|From:||Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, basil(dot)bourque(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: BUG #15912: The units of `autovacuum_vacuum_cost_delay` setting should be documented|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 02:37:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think this is confusingly bad English, and it's poor exposition
> because a minor detail (it must be pretty minor, if we got away
> without mentioning it at all for years) is injected into the middle
> of the basic statement of the variable's purpose. I think what we'd
> be better off doing is to write a separate sentence mentioning the
> units, in more or less the same way that we generally handle the
> default value. In <14850(dot)1571941169(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> I suggested
> this revision for statement_timeout:
> Abort any statement that takes more than the specified duration.
> If <varname>log_min_error_statement</varname> is set
> to <literal>ERROR</literal> or lower, the statement that timed out
> will also be logged.
> If the value is specified as a plain number, it is measured in
> milliseconds by default.
> A value of zero (the default) disables the timeout.
> (I'm not quite sure whether the ending "by default" is worth writing
> or not.)
> Barring objections, I'll run around and make them all look like that.
Thanks for applying the improvement in your patch cfb7559083. I was
torn between it being a minor issue and not wanting to devote a new
sentence about it, which is why I awkwardly used parentheses.
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
|Next Message||Andrey Lepikhov||2019-11-06 02:40:48||The XLogFindNextRecord() routine find incorrect record start point after a long continuation record|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2019-11-05 19:37:43||Re: BUG #16095: Segfault while executing trigger|
|Next Message||Daniel Westermann (DWE)||2019-11-05 20:28:57||Re: Instead of using the bloom index, a parallel sequencial scan is used with this example|
|Previous Message||Bruce Momjian||2019-11-05 20:02:51||Re: Instead of using the bloom index, a parallel sequencial scan is used with this example|